{"id":34097,"date":"2023-05-10T10:49:19","date_gmt":"2023-05-10T16:49:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/heres-why-polis-appears-ready-to-veto-a-bipartisan-wolf-reintroduction-bill\/"},"modified":"2023-05-10T16:49:19","modified_gmt":"2023-05-10T16:49:19","slug":"heres-why-polis-appears-ready-to-veto-a-bipartisan-wolf-reintroduction-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/heres-why-polis-appears-ready-to-veto-a-bipartisan-wolf-reintroduction-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s why Polis appears ready to veto a bipartisan wolf reintroduction bill"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"A
A wolf from the Wapiti Lake pack is silhouetted by a nearby hot spring in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., on Jan. 24, 2018. (Jacob W. Frank\/National Park Service via AP, file)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

It\u2019s been nearly three years since Colorado voters narrowly approved a ballot measure calling for the reintroduction of gray wolves.<\/p>\n

Since then, state wildlife managers have held numerous hearings on the topic and written a detailed plan to manage the predators. All of those efforts have aimed toward a deadline in the text of the law approved by voters: Dec. 31, 2023.<\/p>\n

At an end-of-session news conference on Tuesday, Gov. Jared Polis said he remains committed to that timeline, which is why he signaled he\u2019ll likely block a bipartisan bill approved by lawmakers in the final days of the legislative session. That\u2019s because he worries the proposal could lead to legal complications and delay the state\u2019s voter-mandated reintroduction plan.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s certainly clear where our agencies were,\u201d Polis said when asked about the possibility of a veto. \u201cI don\u2019t think people will be surprised.\u201d<\/p>\n

State Rep. Matt Soper, a Delta Republican and a lead sponsor, was frustrated to hear the governor hint at a veto, especially when the bill passed both chambers of the Legislature with broad bipartisan support.<\/p>\n

\u201cI just find it unbelievable,\u201d Soper said. \u201cHe needs to listen to the people\u2019s elected representatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s why lawmakers introduced the bill in the first place<\/div>\n

The center of the conflict is the U.S. Endangered Species Act. After a judge relisted wolves as an endangered species last year, it became a federal felony for anyone in Colorado \u2013 including state wildlife officers \u2013 to harass or kill one of the predators.<\/p>\n

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has never intended to release wolves with those strict protections in place. That\u2019s why it applied for a 10(j) permit, which would allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate Colorado\u2019s wolves as an \u201cexperimental population.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the exception, the state could likely follow through on planned policies to kill or use certain techniques to scare off certain wolves if they\u2019re a consistent threat to livestock or pets. In recent testimony before the state Legislature, Dan Gibbs, director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said the federal government is on track to issue the permit ahead of the end-of-year deadline.<\/p>\n

The rural lawmakers behind the legislation say their bill is meant to hold the state to those promises. If enacted, it would only allow reintroduction to proceed once Colorado secures the permit. The idea won emphatic support from Western Slope ranchers who see lethal management as a necessary option to protect their livelihoods.<\/p>\n

\u201cI see this bill as complementary to their efforts to do wolf introduction correctly. And the majority of the Legislature felt the same way,\u201d said state Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Democrat from Steamboat Springs and a lead bill sponsor.<\/p>\n

But wolf advocates warn the plan could imperil a tricky process to obtain the federal permit.<\/p>\n

Mike Phillips, director of the Turner Endangered Species Fund and a member of a state working group advising Colorado\u2019s wolf efforts, explained the federal government is now reviewing a number of options in response to Colorado\u2019s application.<\/p>\n

One is a \u201cno-action alternative,\u201d which essentially means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would allow reintroduction to take place without a 10(j) permit in place. That\u2019s not Colorado\u2019s preferred option, but Phillips warned the proposed legislation would invalidate it altogether and thereby throw a wrench into the mechanics of the evaluation process.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat \u2018no-action\u2019 alternative needs to be viable,\u201d Phillips said. \u201cIt can\u2019t be meaningless because it\u2019s the benchmark against which we can compare the consequences of the other alternatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another point of legal disagreement is the deadline included in the original initiative. In official state discussions around wolf reintroduction, the interpretation has always been wildlife managers must put \u201cpaws on the ground\u201d by the end of this year.<\/p>\n

But the language in the voter-approved wolf measure is a little more vague. It reads the state must \u201ctake the steps necessary to begin reintroductions of gray wolves by December 31, 2023.\u201d The lawmakers behind the bill say Colorado has already taken \u201cthe steps necessary\u201d by writing an official plan and applying for a federal permit.<\/p>\n

If the disagreement ever reached a courtroom, Phillips said a judge would likely evaluate the intent of voters. Since most official explanations ahead of the election noted the date as the deadline for reintroduction, he thinks a court would quickly toss out the lawmakers\u2019 logic.<\/p>\n

There is, however, one point of agreement among opponents and supporters of the legislation: If the federal government issues a permit before the deadline, the entire disagreement could be a moot point.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf all goes according to plan, then this bill will never be needed,\u201d Roberts said.<\/p>\n

To read more stories from Colorado Public Radio, visit www.cpr.org<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Governor worries it could throw a legal wrench into the process<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":34098,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[394,819,28,603],"naviga_topic":[],"class_list":["post-34097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-colorado-legislature","tag-gov-jared-polis","tag-headlines","tag-wildlife"],"acf":[],"author_name":"dh_admin","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34097\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34097"},{"taxonomy":"naviga_topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/naviga_topic?post=34097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}